Humanity

By John S. Hammett, Katie J. McCoy, David S. Dockery and 2 more

Perhaps no doctrine is more urgent for today’s Christians to study than the doctrine of humanity. Nearly every cultural debate seems to hinge upon one’s theological anthropology and its significance for daily life.Humanity by John Hammett and Katie McCoy is an urgent theological study of the doctrine of humanity. The authors shed light on the philosophical, cultural, and spiritual influences that constantly challenge the dignity of human existence.

Humanity offers a fresh perspective built on four core assumptions: that humans are divine creations, that our understanding comes from our Creator's intentions, that Scripture reveals these intentions, and that living in accordance with our created nature leads to a truly fulfilling life. Whether you are a student, professor, or layperson interested in this pivotal cultural topic, this is an invaluable resource that will empower you to understand yourself in light of Scripture and engage with the pressing issues of our world today.

• Language: English
• Publisher: BH Publishing Group
• Release date: Sep 1, 2023
• ISBN: 9781087730165

John S. Hammett

John S. Hammett (Ph.D., The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary) is professor of Systematic Theology at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest, North Carolina.

Book preview

Table of Contents

Preface

Abbreviations

Introduction

1. Humanity in Contemporary Culture

2. Humans as Created Beings

3. Created in the Image of God

4. Created Male and Female

5. Created to Work

6. Created for Community

7. Created with a Complex Constitution

8. Not as We Were Created: Sin

9. Not Now as We Will Be: Sanctification and Glorification

10. The Divine Design: The Story from Beginning to End

Appendix: Contemporary Questions of Gender Identity

Bibliography

Name Index

Subject Index

Scripture Index

This book will become a standard in the field of biblical and theological anthropology. It is comprehensive and superbly written. It will serve well both the church and the academy. I have awaited its publication, and I am thrilled it’s here.

—Daniel Akin, president and professor of preaching, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary

"This book, by John Hammett and Katie McCoy, is thorough, balanced, insightful, well-written, and biblically grounded. Going forward, I will enthusiastically assign Humanity for my courses on this doctrine."

—Gregg Allison, professor of Christian theology, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

The doctrine of humanity is one of the most critical topics of our day. Most of the contemporary cultural, apologetic, and moral questions that we face stem from what we think human beings are. As such, this is exactly the kind of book needed in times like these, and John Hammett and Katie McCoy are the perfect scholars to help us think through these important issues. I’m grateful for the depth and clarity of their work, and I trust this will be an incredible resource for anyone who reads it.

—Tara Dew, adjunct professor of ministry to women, New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary

"Humanity is thoughtful, articulate, thorough, and immensely practical. As a counselor and educator, I cannot overstate the importance of theological anthropology, and this text by Hammett and McCoy provides just that and does so in a way that is truly enjoyable to read. I found myself not wanting to put it down. This will be a resource that I use both in my classroom and for personal study for years to come."

—Kristen Kellen, associate professor of biblical counseling, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary

"Evangelicals have long required a substantial theological anthropology for use in the classroom and for personal study. Katie McCoy and John Hammett answered that call with this masterpiece, grounding their work in careful biblical exegesis while conversing with major cultural trends. Engaging in style, wise in judgment, and steeped in learning, Humanity will doubtless become the standard work in this field."

—Malcolm B. Yarnell III, research professor of theology, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary

Humanity

Humanity

Copyright © 2023 by John S. Hammett and Katie J. McCoy

Published by B&H Academic

Brentwood, Tennessee

All rights reserved.

ISBN: 978-1-0877-3016-5

Dewey Decimal Classification: 128

Subject Heading: HUMAN BEHAVIOR \ CONDUCT OF LIFE \ LIFE

Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture quotations are taken from the Christian Standard Bible®, Copyright © 2017 by Holman Bible Publishers. Used by permission. Christian Standard Bible® and CSB® are federally registered trademarks of Holman Bible Publishers.

Scripture quotations marked ESV are from the ESV® Bible (The Holy Bible, English Standard Version®). ESV® Text Edition: 2016. Copyright © 2001 by Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. The ESV® text has been reproduced in cooperation with and by permission of Good News Publishers. Unauthorized reproduction of this publication is prohibited. All rights reserved.

Scripture quotations marked KJV are from the King James Version of the Bible. Public domain.

Scripture quotations marked NIV are from THE HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION®, NIV® Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.® Used by permission. All rights reserved worldwide.

The web addresses referenced in this book were live and correct at the time of the book’s publication but may be subject to change.

This book is part of the Theology for the People of God series.

Cover design by B&H Publishing Group. Cover image: Jesus Feeds the Five Thousand, Byzantine mosaic, Cathedral of Santa Maria Nuova, Monreale, Sicily, Italy. Sourced from imageBROKER / Alamy Stock Photo.

Printed in the United States of America

28 27 26 25 24 23 RRD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

PREFACE

This book has been a long time in the making. At the urging of a number of my colleagues here at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, I (John) began teaching courses on the doctrine of humanity in 2005. In the years since then, the importance and urgency of the issues connected to the doctrine of humanity have skyrocketed. New terms have entered the vocabulary of theological anthropology and the need for a text dealing with contemporary issues was obvious. I began work on this volume as far back as 2012 but did not move toward publication of it until Chris Thompson, formerly at Lifeway but now a colleague at Southeastern, kindly looked at it and told me he thought that it might fit within the series, Theology for the People of God. He put me in touch with the editors, Chris Morgan, David Dockery, and Nathan Finn. I thank the editors for their invitation to participate in this series and for their guidance along the way. They also put me in touch with my coauthor, Dr. Katie McCoy, who has collaborated with me and added fresh insight and a new perspective in the production of this volume. Looking back, I think God providentially kept me from publication until she could add her perspective. I thank her, my colleagues and students who have encouraged and sharpened my thinking, and the administration of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, for a sabbatical during the academic year of 2020–21 that provided the time for the research and writing of this manuscript. I believe the issues connected with the doctrine of humanity may be the most important issues facing the church of Christ in the twenty-first century and pray the Lord of the church will use this volume to help his church deal with them well.

There is perhaps no doctrine more urgent for today’s Christians to study than the doctrine of humanity. Nearly every cultural debate we face seems to hinge upon one’s theological anthropology and its significance for our lives. I (Katie) hope this work provides clarity and guidance for the twenty-first-century evangelical church on this increasingly intricate subject. I am exceedingly grateful to Dr. John Hammett, for his patience, kindness, and shepherding influence in the cowriting process. His dedication to excellence and his pastoral care were evident through every step of this project. I am also grateful to our editors—Drs. Chris Morgan, Nathan Finn, and David Dockery—for including me in this significant series. Their vision to connect younger and established theologians reflects their commitment to approaching academic scholarship with Christian discipleship. I also extend a special word of gratitude to Dr. Dockery, the former president of my undergraduate alma mater, for his personal investment in the success of his graduates; the reach of his influence will continue to generations to come. The support of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary and Travis Avenue Baptist Church enabled me to give this work the dedication it deserved. Finally, I could not have completed this without my family’s steadfast encouragement. I am especially grateful to my mom, who, on my worst days, wouldn’t let me quit.

The process of writing this book has renewed my conviction of the dignity of human life, a dignity that faces constant subversion by philosophical, cultural, and spiritual influences. But it has also renewed my sense of wonder in the God who made us in his image, how he created such complex amalgams of strength and fragility, spirit and body, temporal and eternal. Truly, all life is precious to the Lord. If, after reading this work, one has greater grace for and gentleness toward one’s fellow image-bearers, we will have succeeded.

ABBREVIATIONS

INTRODUCTION

In this book, we examine a subject of perpetual interest to humans: ourselves. Most people at one time or another pause to consider the enigma of human nature. We ask questions such as, Who are we? Why are we here? How should we live? Humans are capable of great acts of love, can create majestic works of art, and can even enter into a relationship with an infinite God, yet they are equally capable of horrific evil and cruelty, and share many features in common with other animals. In the end, despite all their efforts to resist it, they die, and most are quickly forgotten. Scripture compares us to a vapor that appears for a little while, then vanishes ( Jas 4:14). No wonder the psalmist marvels in amazement that God is mindful of us ( Ps 8:3–4).

The English poet Alexander Pope, in his Essay on Man,¹ saw our proper field of study as humans to be our own strange nature:

Know then thyself, presume not God to scan;

the proper study of mankind is man.

Placed on this isthmus of a middle state,

being darkly wise and rudely great;

with too much knowledge for the skeptic side,

with too much weakness for the stoic’s pride,

he hangs between; in doubt to act, or rest;

in doubt to deem himself a God, or beast;

in doubt his mind or body to prefer. . . .

Sole judge of truth, in endless Error hurled:

The glory, jest and riddle of the world!

What hope do we have of resolving this riddle? There have been a multitude of competing suggestions concerning human nature and the proper goals of human existence down through the history of thought, especially from philosophers. Today there are more empirically based analyses, from sociologists and scientists.

This book will seek to offer a different perspective. It is built on four assumptions: that humans are creatures, that they can only be understood in light of the intentions of their Creator, that the Creator’s intentions are revealed in the pages of Scripture, and that humans enjoy a truly and fully human life only when they live in accordance with their created nature. Thus, it will seek to offer a biblical perspective on human nature as designed by God.

Key Elements of Biblical Teaching (and an Outline of this Book)

In 1986, Robert Fulghum wrote an entertaining and insightful book, All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten, reminding us of the enduring value of some very basic concepts. Biblical teaching on humanity is much in keeping with Fulghum’s idea, for almost all of the major elements of biblical teaching are at least introduced to us in the first three chapters of the Bible. They are as follows:

We are created beings (Gen 1:26–27).

We are created in the image of God (Gen 1:26–27).

We are created male and female (Gen 1:26–28; 2:18–25).

We are created to work (Gen 1:26, 28; 2:15).

We are created for community (Gen 2:18).

We are created with a complex constitution (Gen 2:7).

We are not as we were created; we are fallen (Gen 2:16–17; 3:1–24).

We are not now as we will be; we are being sanctified and will be glorified (Gen 3:22; Rev 22:1–4).

We follow this biblical order and structure of this book with chapters devoted to each of these foundational elements. Before beginning this biblical exploration, chapter 1 sketches the contemporary context, giving some of the prominent approaches to human nature evident in twenty-first-century North American culture, and introducing the reader to the distinctiveness of a Christian approach. The remaining chapters examine these key elements of the divine design for human nature. Chapter 2 addresses the crucial affirmation that we are created by God. We show that Scripture addresses most clearly the questions of who created us and why he created us, but we acknowledge and address the controversies over how and when God created humans, interacting with questions raised by various physical and social sciences, as well as different interpretations of Scripture, especially the key chapters of Genesis 1 and 2. We consider the varying responses given to the questions of how and when God created humans, evaluating the responses, not in terms of their scientific accuracy but in terms of their theological viability. We also set forth what we see as essential theological commitments in a sound doctrine of human creation.

In our next chapter, we consider the critical but somewhat cryptic teaching that humans are created in God’s image. Biblically speaking, this is the distinctive mark of humanity. Only humans are image-bearers of God. However, what that means is not explicitly defined by Scripture, and so we examine the biblical teaching and historical discussions to illuminate the meaning of that important phrase, created in the image of God. We also give our formulation of the meaning of our creation in the image of God and note that something similar to our formulation seems to be developing into something of a consensus in recent years.

The next few chapters build upon that biblical foundation of humans being created by God in his image. We examine the biblical teaching about what it means to be male and female, interacting with the evangelical positions of egalitarianism and complementarianism as well as a variety of related contemporary issues. We address how humans are created to work, giving first a biblical theology of work as created, fallen, redeemed, and consummated, and then a systematic theology of work. We also unpack how humans are created for community, with God, others, and creation.

We then treat how humans are created with a complex constitution; that is, we are more than just a body. Scripture uses terms like soul, spirit, heart, mind, conscience, as well as body to describe the human constitution, and we examine what these terms mean in Scripture. We also examine the current debate over dualistic understandings of the human constitution and advocate a functionally holistic but ontologically dualistic view of humans.

The next two chapters shed light on what it means to be human through focusing on two truths. We first examine how we are not now as we were originally created. We are fallen and this has bearing for our theological anthropology. We then examine how we are not now what we will be. We are undergoing and will ultimately be changed by sanctification and glorification, and this also is important for our doctrine of humanity.

We conclude with the story of humanity from beginning to end. The divine design begins in creation, is twisted in the fall, and is renewed in Christ—initially, progressively, and ultimately.

In all these chapters, we are grateful to work in the company of and with assistance from a large community of scholars, theologians, and interpreters. Each of the issues discussed in these chapters has been the topic of numerous books written by such individuals. This volume prioritizes breadth of coverage over depth, seeking to touch upon all the key issues in a single book. For those seeking more depth, suggested resources will be given in a bibliography at the end of the book.

Why This Book Matters

Shakespeare’s Macbeth describes life as a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Sadly, some people today regard humans in the same way. We may make a lot of noise, but in the end, we are meaningless. Why then should someone read a book on humanity? For the Christian, humans are worthy of attention, first and foremost, because God is worthy of attention, and he has chosen to involve himself with humans. From his choice to create humans with the dignity of being his image-bearers, to his decision to identify with them even in their sinfulness in Jesus Christ, to his willingness to indwell them in the person of the Holy Spirit, God has invested humans with tremendous significance.

Second, the study of humanity matters for the follower of Christ, because the greatest commandment, to love God, is joined to a second commandment like it: love your neighbor as yourself (Matt 22:36–40). All these neighbors we are called to love are humans, and can only be properly loved if we know what they are called to be and do. Only thus can our love for them be truly helpful.

Third, studying humanity is an act of personal discipleship. Each of us has only one short life to offer in service to God on this earth. How can we live it rightly if we do not know what the Creator has made us for? Finally, the study of human nature is especially important today because many of the most contentious and controversial issues in contemporary culture lead us to the questions this book seeks to address. Are we the products of chance or of a Creator? Is there any such thing as a given human nature? Is there a basis for human dignity and value? What does it mean to be male or female? What contributes to human flourishing? What makes for a good life? Are we just bodies, or is there something more to human nature? Why are we so prone to do that which we acknowledge as evil? Is there any hope or help?

To meet these important needs that truly matter, we offer this book.

¹. This book will use human or person as opposed to man, and will use they or will alternate he and she for the anonymous third person singular. But many sources used in this book, such as this poem, were written before sexist language was seen as problematic or offensive. Thus, we retain the original word man as used in these sources, despite the fact that we think human would be much better. The approach taken here is to respect their historical particularity, leave their language as it was, and ask readers to overlook language that today may be thought offensive, as that was not the intention of the writers.

Chapter 1

Humanity in Contemporary Culture

The opening words of John Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion illustrate the importance of the doctrine of humanity: Without knowledge of self there is no knowledge of God. . . . Without knowledge of God there is no knowledge of self. ¹ This insight epitomizes the interconnectedness of systematic theology; that which we have affirmed in one aspect of our theology affects that which we will affirm in another aspect of our theology. Indeed, while doctrines are distinct, they cannot be isolated without losing their meaning.

Yet even the genius of Calvin is nothing new. The opening words of Scripture depict the identity of the God who creates and those created in his image as mutually revelatory: humanity, rightly and truly known, represents certain aspects of God, whereas God, rightly and truly known, archetypes certain aspects of humanity. Indeed, while God’s image-bearers are distinct, they cannot be isolated from God himself without losing their meaning.

Perhaps that is why the subject of human nature has fascinated artists, poets, and philosophers for centuries. In more recent years, those in the physical and social sciences have joined the conversation. Some have argued there is no given human nature, that all is the product of nurture. Others have focused on the very phrase human nature and sought to give a full and precise definition to it.

As this book appears in the series Theology for the People of God, the approach to human nature taken here will be theological. Our goal is not so much to define human nature as to discern and describe God’s design for humans. Specifically, the theological approach taken here will be evangelical, following the Reformation principle of sola Scriptura. Thus, this book is structured around the key elements of biblical teaching on human nature. Each will also interact with ideas from history, philosophy, popular culture, and the various sciences, but biblical and theological concerns will be foremost. In this chapter, however, we want to begin by acknowledging the wide variety of understandings of human nature, throughout history, around the world, and especially those prominent in contemporary North American culture. Philosopher Leslie Stevenson and a team of coauthors have presented thirteen theories of human nature, drawing from religious traditions (Confucianism, Upanishadic Hinduism, Buddhism, the Bible, and Islam), a number of important individual thinkers (Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Marx, Freud, and Sartre), and a variety of approaches grouped under Darwinian theories of human nature and feminist theories of human nature. ² To these could be added African, Asian, Native American, and no doubt other theories of human nature. ³

These different understandings of human nature are of more than merely academic interest, for they are intended to give guidance for how we should live. Stevenson says a theory of human nature should include four elements: (1) a background metaphysical understanding of the universe and humanity’s place in it, (2) a distinctive set of claims about human beings, human society, and the human condition, (3) a diagnosis of some typical defect, what tends to go wrong in human life and society, and (4) a prescription for correcting what goes wrong and an ideal for how human life should best be lived. ⁴

Incorporating aspects of some but not all of these various theories, three basic approaches seem to have particular importance in contemporary North American culture.

Additionally, each of these theories represents a worldview, a system of interpreting the world around us. Charles Colson and Nancy Pearcey have identified three basic questions that every worldview answers: 1) Where did we come from, and who are we [creation]? This question represents one’s answer to the origin of humanity. 2) What has gone wrong in the world [fall]? This question identifies the problem of the human condition. 3) What can we do to fix it [redemption]? ⁵ This question answers the remedy for the problem(s) of the human condition. How one answers these three questions forms one’s worldview. Moreover, as we will note in the theories considered below, one’s answer to the problem of the human condition is inextricably linked to the consequent remedy for that problem.

Figure 1

Some theories see human nature as radically free; that is, there is no divine or natural givenness to human nature. Humans create their own nature by their individual choices. Other theories see a completely opposite picture. Human nature is determined by forces outside of the control of individuals. Those forces may be societal, familial, economic, environmental, or biological, but these theories all agree that humans are products, not active choosing agents.

Between theories espousing radical freedom and those seeing total determinism, the Christian view of human nature is distinctive in seeing humans as both created beings and human persons. As the latter, they are endowed by their Creator with a measure of freedom and corresponding responsibility, but that freedom is limited by their created nature and influenced but not canceled by outside forces. In the remainder of this chapter, we will sketch out major free views of human nature and major deterministic views of human nature, critique them, and offer a Christian view as an alternative.

Again, we must emphasize that these theories are not merely of academic interest or an intellectual curiosity. Again, as Stevenson says,

Different conceptions of human nature can lead to different views about what we ought to do and how we can do it. If an all-powerful and supremely good God made us, then it must be his purpose that defines what we can be and ought to be, and we must look to him for help. If, on the other hand, we are products of society, and if we find that our lives are unsatisfactory, then there can be no real solution until human society is transformed. If we are radically free and can never escape the necessity for individual choice, then we have to accept this and make our choices with full awareness of what we are doing. If our biological nature predisposes or determines us to think, feel, and act in certain ways, then we must take realistic account of that in individual choices and in social policy. ⁶

Stevenson reiterates the worldview implications that each of these theories carries. He also conveys what these theories attempt to capture: a cogent explanation of human nature and a solution to the human problem. And implicit in each proposed solution to the human problem is a measure of hope—hope for peace, meaning, and redemption. These two extremes—products of society and radically free—are both prominent in our contemporary North American culture. We will look at examples from both extremes, then offer the Christian view as an alternative system to these theories. As we will discover, only the Christian worldview provides both an accurate depiction of, and an accessible remedy for, the human condition. Christianity alone affords us the diagnosis and the dignity that is both unflinchingly realistic and utterly redemptive.

Free Views

First, let us consider what we may call free views of human nature. In a sense, it is somewhat inappropriate to call these views of human nature, for a major contention shared by those who take this approach is that there is no one human nature per se. Certainly, there is no human nature created by God; humans create their own nature. This is radical freedom with no design from God as to what he intends for humans to be. Humans are seen as enlightened and responsible to choose their own way. This position has been dominant since the Enlightenment, but has encountered some challenges in recent years from determinist views.

Existentialism

Some would see the Danish Christian thinker Søren Kierkegaard as the first modern existentialist. He was sharply critical of the conventional Christian church of his day, but differs equally sharply from later atheistic existentialists and their idea that humans must develop their own values. While he was distrustful of reason’s power, in some respects he stands close to evangelical presuppositionalism with its faith commitment to the Bible’s God as the ground of life and thought. ⁷

Some later theologians were influenced by some of the emphases of existentialist thought (Rudolf Bultmann and Paul Tillich), but the mainstream of existentialism flowed through Friedrich Nietzsche and especially Jean Paul Sartre and has been clearly atheistic. With no God, there is no objective, external source for human values; we must choose our own. Moreover, there is no source for human nature as such. Sartre expresses this in his famous slogan, Man’s existence precedes his essence. ⁸ We have not been created for any particular purpose; what we become is up to us. Stevenson says, Sartre tries to extend our freedom and our responsibility to everything we think, feel, and do, thus rejecting all forms of determinism. ⁹ But how should we use our freedom? What should we choose? Sartre offers little guidance, beyond the condemnation of what he calls bad faith, the attempt to think of oneself as not free. ¹⁰

The problem with Sartre’s existentialism is that it seems unable to morally distinguish between choosing to abuse children and choosing to help them. Any authentic choice is equally an exercise of freedom. Stevenson sees in Sartre’s later writings an attempt to recognize some proper limits of human freedom, and even an advocacy for safeguarding the freedom of others and assisting them in the pursuit of their goals, but it is for his defense of radical human freedom that Sartre is known, and it is such freedom that is usually associated with existentialism. ¹¹ For Sartre, humans are blank slates, with absolute power to shape their own nature; the problem of the human condition lies in one’s failure to recognize the freedom to shape one’s true self; and redemption of humanity consists of shaping one’s essence according to one’s will. Today, interest in existentialism per se seems to be declining, but its emphasis on radical human freedom is carried on in humanism and transhumanism. ¹²

Humanism

The various humanist manifestos published over the past seventy-five years demonstrate the ongoing interest in promulgating a free view of human nature. Interestingly, the first Humanist Manifesto, released in 1933, called for religious humanism, but understood religious in a new way. ¹³ While acknowledging the importance of traditional religions for the past, the signers of this statement believed developments in the twentieth century created a situation which requires a new statement of the means and purposes of religion. To be specific, they define religion as consisting of those actions, purposes, and experiences which are humanly significant, and they do not look for any involvement with a deity. In particular, they are impressed by science and fully accept naturalistic evolution: Humanism asserts that the nature of the universe as depicted by modern science makes unacceptable any supernatural or cosmic guarantees of human values. Yet despite the lack of any transcendent creator, they are not at all discouraged. Man is at last becoming aware that he alone is responsible for the realization of the world of his dreams, that he has within himself the power of its achievement. He must set intelligence and will to the task. In this statement, humans are seen as free, able, and responsible.

Forty years later, the same organization issued Humanist Manifesto II. Surprisingly, they begin with a confession: It is forty years since Humanist Manifesto I (1933) appeared. Events since then make that earlier statement seem far too optimistic. ¹⁴ They cite horrors like Nazism, the rise of other totalitarian regimes, and the use of science for destructive purposes. Yet their opposition to traditional theism, especially faith in the prayer-hearing God, assumed to live and care for persons, to hear and understand their prayers, and to be able to do something about them, is as strong as ever. In fact, even the adjective religious, used to modify humanism six times in the earlier statement, is absent from this one. Their affirmation of naturalistic evolution is again unmistakable: We can discern no divine purpose or providence for the human species. Despite the admittedly overly optimistic assessment of their earlier statement, and despite the lack of change in any basic views, they again issue an optimistic forecast:

Using technology wisely, we can control our environment, conquer poverty, markedly reduce disease, extend our life-span, significantly modify our behavior, alter the course of human evolution and cultural development, unlock vast new powers, and provide humankind with unparalleled opportunity for achieving an abundant and meaningful life.

Paul Kurtz, one of the two authors of the preface to Humanist Manifesto II, extended the ideas of that statement in a later document, Humanist Manifesto 2000: A Call for a New Planetary Humanism. ¹⁵ It begins by affirming our unique moment in history: For the first time in human history, we possess the means provided by science and technology to ameliorate the human condition, advance happiness and freedom, and enhance life for all people on this planet. Their worldview is straightforwardly identified: The unique message of humanism on the current world scene is its commitment to scientific naturalism. They emphasize the need to rely on reason, intelligence, and the scientific method, but see no conflict between reason and the highest ethical values. Indeed, they claim that the underlying ethical principle of Planetary Humanism is the need to respect the dignity and worth of all persons in the world community. The optimism that suffuses the document comes through clearly in their assessment of the future of humanity: Although many problems may seem intractable, we have good reasons to believe that we can marshal our talent to solve them, and that by goodwill and dedication a better life will be attainable by more and more members of the human community. Again, there is a positive, can-do attitude; humans are free to make wise choices.

Finally, in 2003, Humanist Manifesto III was released. ¹⁶ The same themes appear. Humanism is defined as a progressive philosophy of life that, without supernaturalism, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity. Again, there is the affirmation that humans are both the result of unguided evolutionary change, and yet have inherent worth and dignity. The statement ends with another bold statement of human ability and responsibility: Thus engaged in the flow of life, we aspire to this vision with the informed conviction that humanity has the ability to progress toward its highest ideals. The responsibility for our lives and the kind of world in which we live is ours and ours alone.

Today, humanism as a movement seems to be in decline, but many aspects of its view of human nature are carried by movements like naturalism and transhumanism and thus a critique of humanism is needed. But before turning to a critique of the view of human nature expressed in these documents, we should note that there are some internal signs of tension. On the one hand, alongside the affirmations of the goodness of science and technology, there are recognitions that science and technology can also be used to control and manipulate humans. Indeed, the fact that we can use science and technology to alter or control human behavior may be more of a cause for alarm than hope. Humanist Manifesto II, recognizing this danger, included a protest against it: We are particularly disturbed when technology and bureaucracy control, manipulate or modify human beings without their consent. This tension is also revealed in another curious statement in Humanist Manifesto II: Although science can account for the causes of behavior, the possibilities of individual freedom of choice exist in human life and should be increased. How can scientific causality and human freedom coexist?

A second unrecognized tension is between the value attributed to humans and the lack of a basis for such value. On the one hand, humanists want to clearly affirm the dignity, value, and rights of the individual person. Yet, they equally clearly see humans as simply the product of naturalistic, unguided evolution. Why should such a non-transcendent organism be regarded as precious and worthy of dignity, more than any other organism? They seem very open to the charge of species-ism. Beyond these internal tensions, there are two major problems with this view of human nature on logical as well as theological grounds.

The first has already been mentioned, the lack of foundation for their beliefs. What are the bases for human rights? Why is human freedom a good thing? Why not let humanity determine what is right? Why should we care for others? Why is a commitment to humankind a higher commitment than a commitment to one’s own comfort? Why should rich nations help poor ones? These documents certainly represent a faith, but not a very well-founded one.

A second problem is that of morality and the existence of evil. Humanist Manifesto II recognized that the enormity of evil, seen especially in World War II, made their earlier statement seem overly optimistic, but they maintained the same position, essentially ignoring the problem. Simply calling for people to exercise goodwill and act for the good of all does not seem to be working. There is no explanation for why there is evil, or how one can even judge anything to be evil. Under humanist ideals, one may say that a given action is illegal, but what basis is there for calling anything evil? Yet the events of 9/11 and terrorist activity around the world in the twenty-first century have reintroduced moral categories of real good and real evil for many thoughtful people; they have experienced both.

In spite of this realization and in the face of much evidence, the signers of these documents believe that intelligence, goodwill, and cooperation will see us through to a new and better world. Yet there is no reason why one should sacrifice, care for others, or do anything for reasons other than self-interest. The view of human nature in this document deprives one of any rational basis for morality, beyond that of legal restrictions to not hurt others. On the one hand, they say that morals should be autonomous and situational, yet they equally call for accepting planetary responsibility. What is the basis for this responsibility or commitment to all humanity? For humanism, the basic problem of the human condition is not actually a condition. Rather, it is the under-realization of human potential to solve the world’s problems. Consequently, humanity is its own redemption, typically through social means. This view lacks logical consistency and cogency, and exhibits a surprising naiveté in the face of evil. It seems to be losing influence in contemporary culture, with transhumanism on the rise.

Transhumanism

Transhumanism, also known today as Humanity+, defines itself as a cultural movement that aims to improve the human condition, with the mission of advocating for the ethical use of technology and evidence-based science to expand human capabilities, or pushing humanity forward through safe and ethical technologies to overcome human limitations. ¹⁷ They are very optimistic about the potential of humanity to overcome aging, cognitive shortcomings, involuntary suffering and even our confinement to planet Earth. ¹⁸ This is a very high view of human ability to achieve freedom from virtually all limitations.

As of now, they think humanity’s potential is still mostly unrealized, but believe that because of advances in technology, realizing that potential is at hand, and with that, the next step in human evolution. ¹⁹ The goal of transhumanists is posthumanism, which they see as the next step in human evolution, indeed an exponentially greater step in evolutionary development. ²⁰ As Jacob Shatzer succinctly describes it, Transhumanism is the process, posthumanism the goal. ²¹

A strong emphasis in transhumanism is a great belief in technology, which they see as the tool to profoundly affect human nature. Shatzer says, "If we had to boil transhumanism down to two features, they would be an optimism regarding the possibility of radically altering human nature via technology and belief in a fundamental right of an individual to use technologies for that purpose." ²² And while some may see the scenarios envisioned by transhumanists as science fiction, ²³ Christian physicist Fazale Rana gives this evaluation: Their ideas are based on sound scientific insights, not quackery. And the interventions they propose are feasible, given advances in genetic engineering, nanotechnology, and biotechnology. ²⁴

While there is some variety among transhumanists (including some Christian transhumanists), one spokesperson sees seven themes as common to all transhumanists: continual progress, self-improvement, an optimistic attitude, the use of technology to overcome limitations, a society with open communication and innovation, self-direction, and reason. ²⁵ But the assertion that all seven of these themes are affirmed by all transhumanists may be open to question. The Christian Transhumanist Association, founded in 2013 by Micah Redding, sees transhumanism simply as a philosophy which states that we should use science and technology to make the world (including humanity) better. ²⁶ Presumably, as Christians they would not use reason to the exclusion of faith, and would qualify self-direction to understand such self-direction as occurring under the lordship of Christ. But there are definitely some similarities among all who call themselves transhumanists.

Transhumanists themselves recognize that their proposals do hold some dangers. They repeatedly call for the use of safe and ethical technologies and acknowledge the risks that could come from the misuse of new technologies. ²⁷ The Transhumanist Declaration includes several caveats, calling for policy making that takes seriously both opportunities and risks . . . autonomy and individual rights . . . the interests and dignity of all people around the globe and even our moral responsibilities toward generations that will exist in the future. ²⁸ They believe the potential benefits far outweigh the risks and are optimistic about the prospects.

How should Christians evaluate transhumanism? We certainly stand with them in their desire to alleviate human suffering, and like them see death as an enemy (1 Cor 15:26). Indeed, as Maxwell Mehlman has observed, What is striking, however, is how closely the transhumanist vision resembles the images of heaven at the heart of most of the world’s religions. ²⁹ But most Christian observers of transhumanism find their vision of human transformation to be at odds with Christian versions. For example, Christian optimism about the future of humanity does not look to technological upgrading, but to God’s action in the resurrection of the body. ³⁰ Moreover, it is worth asking a question about the goal of enhancing humans: What does it mean that our Lord healed and restored in his ­ministry—never enhanced? Is it significant that the gifts of the Spirit—­wisdom, patience, kindness—cannot be manufactured by technology? ³¹ Thus, the goal of transhumanism (the posthuman) is quite different from the goal of the gospel (the glorified human).

Transhumanism also raises numerous ethical concerns. Transhumanists seem to sense this, and the key statements on the home page for Humanity+ use the adjective ethical twice; and they make a statement on ethics in the Transhumanist FAQ, claiming that transhumanism is compatible with a variety of ethical systems, with a core point of agreement being that an improvement in the human condition is a change that gives increased opportunity for individuals to shape themselves and their lives according to their informed wishes. ³² But this overlooks the problem of human wickedness. What if the wishes of some are increased power to dominate and oppress others? What in transhumanism allows them to say that such shaping of themselves is wrong? As Jacob Shatzer observes, Transhumanism struggles to build on anything solid; the ‘better’ cannot be defined in their project. ³³ Their strong advocacy of personal autonomy overlooks the warning of Jer 17:9: The heart is more deceitful than anything else, and incurable.

Patrick Smith sees a further danger in the transhumanist view of the value and dignity of people as they are today. ³⁴ There is such emphasis on the need to transition from the human to the posthuman that when transhumanism calls on people to act with concern for the dignity of all people around the globe, the natural question is, why? ³⁵ Why are humans today, even those opposed to becoming posthuman, worthy of dignity and respect? They lack a basis for the call they issue.

But the most serious question with transhumanism is the compatibility of its goals with the Christian vision of humanity. ³⁶ With the exception of the much milder form of transhumanism in the Christian Transhumanist Association, transhumanism on the whole is limited to a this-worldly perspective on human life. Transhumanists pursue a path that will let them live resistant to disease and impervious to aging; to have unlimited youth and vigor . . . living an indefinitely long, healthy, active life. ³⁷ But is an indefinitely long life on this earth truly the goal of the Christian? Was it not the mercy of God that established death as the limitation of human life in its fallen state, and that in seeking to overcome that limitation, transhumanists are showing a limited, this-worldly vision? ³⁸ Could it be that the limitations that come with human finitude are themselves valuable; to lose them is to lose the very fulfillment we seek to gain? ³⁹ Perhaps transhumanists can make life longer, but will that make it better? Humanity may be able to alleviate physical suffering, but technological advances will not cure the human propensity for exploitation and the abuse of power.

Finally, transhumanism misdiagnoses the central human problem. Transhumanism identifies the human problem as a need for greater technological development and human enhancement. Here too, humanity is its own redemption, but through technological means. But the deepest human need is forgiveness of sin. Only God can deal with sin. He has done so in Christ, and so can give life that is truly abundant and eternal. What transhumanists seek, God offers, but it comes by grace through faith, not by upgrading through technology.

Deterministic Views

In direct opposition to free views of human nature are deterministic views. The common feature that binds this second group of views together is the idea that human actions and behavior, or human nature, are determined by nonpersonal forces. In Stevenson’s words, we are products of society. ⁴⁰ Thus, all these views deny the fundamental Christian claim that human persons are responsible agents who will one day be judged by God. If these views merely claimed that humans are influenced by a variety of factors, there would be no objection. Some factors seem to be ordained by God to shape us (the family, for instance). But to go beyond influence to determinism requires a denial of a fundamental aspect of the Christian view of human nature, that humans are morally responsible agents, which assumes some degree of freedom or choice.

A second factor in common in these views is the attempt, particularly strong since the nineteenth century, to describe humans in a purely scientific framework. In practice, that has meant that humans are approached from the worldview of naturalism, with the assumption that non-empirical factors (God, conscience, genuine choice, and freedom) are irrelevant. ⁴¹ But this is to assume in advance a view of human nature that may not be adequate to encompass all the data relevant to the study of humans. ⁴²

Freudian Psychology

One of the most influential figures of the twentieth century was Sigmund Freud. ⁴³ Common phrases in our language document his impact (Freudian slip), as do the thousands of practitioners of psychology. Four main headings give the basic elements of Freud’s theory of human nature: (1) there is a deterministic cause for everything we do within the realm of the mental; (2) some causes may be unconscious or preconscious; (3) there are various drives within human nature (sex, survival, etc.) that motivate our mental apparatus; (4) individual human character develops in certain stages, with early influences being the most formative. ⁴⁴

Embedded in these concepts is the key assumption of Freud’s work in general and his view of human nature in particular: Everything that happens in our bodies is determined by the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology. ⁴⁵ Stephen Evans characterizes Freud’s view of the mind as mechanistic and deterministic: The mind is conceived as mechanistically determined. All events . . . have antecedent causes which necessarily produce their effects. ⁴⁶

The result is a view of humanity that denies freely made decisions. Rather, our behavior is determined by biologically based instincts and unconscious desires. We may think that we decide, but we are aware only of what goes on at the level of ego, that which controls voluntary movements. But ego is directed by the instinctive desires from the id, and seeks to fulfill or reconcile those desires with the external environment. Further, the superego, formed by parental influences on the ego, also functions on the level of the unconscious, directing and determining actions in ways we do not recognize, because they act on an unconscious level. The key problem people encounter is a lack of harmony between the various parts of the mind, caused by repression, bad childhood experiences, frustration of basic instincts, etc. The cure is to uncover the source of the disharmony. Self-knowledge (somehow) opens up the possibility of greater internal harmony.

Three criticisms may be offered to Freud’s view. First, at times his view is presupposed in such a way that objections against it can never be seriously considered. Any objection made can be dismissed as wish-fulfillment or as originating from some unconscious reason for wanting to reject these ideas. Indeed, much of Freud’s theorizing was overambitious and became too distant from the possibility of empirical testing, thus endangering the scientific status he hoped for it. ⁴⁷ If it